Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Booa Narsimha

DRT19 Jul 2023OA/592/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Debt Recovery Application filed by HDFC Bank Ltd. against Mr. Booa Narsimha for the recovery of the outstanding dues of Rs.28,73,797.88 with interest and costs, as the defendant remained absent and the evidence on record was deemed sufficient.

What did the court decide?

The defendant is directed to pay Rs.28,73,797.88 with future interest at 12% p.a., realize dues through execution proceedings, and the applicant is entitled to costs.

Hdfc Bank versus Booa Narsimha — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD} DATED THIS THE^{19th DAY OF JULY,2023}

¶2

PRESENT: SH. MMESHWAR^{KOTHE, B.COM', L.LB. (HONs.),M.A.} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Original Application^{No: 592 OF 2022}

¶4

HDFC BANK Ltd,, Having its office at^1-10-60/3, 3rd Floor, SuryodaYa^ComPlex, Begumpet, Secunderabad^Mandal, Hyderabad- 500016. Repregented by^its Authorized Signatory.

¶5

...APPlicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr.Booa Narsimha S/o Booa Bixam Aged about 50 Years, Occ: ProPrietor of M/s. Sri Laxmi Narsimha^Logistics, 8- t-284 I OU I 24 1,^Komiresetty Residency-2, O,U.ColonY,^ShaikPet, Hyderabad- 500070.

¶8

Also at:Mr,Booa Narsimha, R/o. H.No. 3-22L /5, Plol^No.326, Road No.11, Prashanthi^Hills, Meerpet, Ranga Reddy District-500097'

¶9

......Defendant

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant^{: Mr.M.Srinivas Reddy}

¶11

Defenda nts 'E*PuVaie

¶12

oA.No.s92l2022

¶13

:: ORDER ::

¶14

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a sum of

¶15

Rs.28,73,797.88ps from the defendant with future interest €D 1go/o p.a. from the date of Application till the date of realisation along with costs.

¶16

Summon served on sole defendant and was set exparte on

¶17

02.72.2022 as called absent and no representation.

¶18

The Applicant Bank examined S.prabhu Kumar, Legal Manager as

¶19

AW-1 and marked 09 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.9.

¶20

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank and perused the material placed on record.

¶21

The point that arises for consideration is:_

¶22

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defenda nt?

¶23

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex_parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.9 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendant. Hence, I hold that the Defendant is liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶24

In the result, the present Original Apptication No.S92/2022 is

¶25

allowed as under: - /%"

¶26

oA.No.592l2022

¶27

i) The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.28,73,797.88ps with future interest @ 120lo p.a. simple, from the date of application till the date of rea lization;

¶28

ii) the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the person and properties of the defendant for realization of its dues;

¶29

iii) the appticant bank is entifled for the costs.

¶30

The Applicant Bank is directed to file cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶31

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶32

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno., transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day ofJuly, 2023) .

¶33

dwuo (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Hdfc Bank v. Booa Narsimha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Booa Narsimha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uco Bank versus Sri Neiphrelie Mechulho

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Sandrembi Foods Products

Canara Bank versus M S Krishna Eco Solutions

Mr Ashra versus Bharat Cooperative Bank Mumbai Limited

Mr Ashraf versus Bharat Cooperative Bank Mumbai Limited

M/S Wani Enterprises versus Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited